Today we're going to take a tiny sugar pill, infused with specially charged water,
and cure our ills in a novel way. For today's topic is homeopathy, one of my
favorite of the many popular alternative medicine systems. Homeopathy has a
large following, but I suspect that a large number of its customers don't really
understand what it is. For example, I asked two friends who are homeopathy
users, on separate occasions, to tell me about it. By coincidence both were
attempting to treat headaches. Both friends had the same general understanding
of what homeopathy is: They said it was essentially an herbal remedy, and that
the small pills they were taking contained some sort of herbal extract. They
could not have been more wrong. I wonder if they would continue taking it if
they knew what homeopathy really is.

Samuel Hahnemann was a German physician. In the late 1700's, all medical conditions
were believed to be caused by an imbalance in the four basic bodily humors:
blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile. Conventional medical practice was
to attempt to equalize these humors by such practices as bloodletting, purging,
or leeching. Hahnemann observed that these practices often caused more problems
than they solved, and so he set about developing a better, safer way to balance
the four humors. He reasoned that the body may be able to balance its own humors,
if given a sort of "kick start"
by administering a small dose of whatever poison or toxin was thought to cause
the imbalance. He called this the Law of Similars. The obvious problem was
that administering poisons and toxins would kill the patient, so he devised
a system of massively diluting the ingredients with water. Hahnemann claimed
that greater dilutions had greater effect in balancing bodily humors, and he
called this the Law of Infinitesimals. His dilutions were as high as 1 part
in 1030. This proportion is vastly larger than one grain of sand
in all the deserts and all the beaches and oceans on the Earth. He published
his theory in 1807, and homeopathy was born.

And then Hahnemann did a very subtle, a very clever, little thing. He made
up a word. The word he invented is allopathy. Allopathy is Hahnemann's
name for all evidence-based medical sciences. That's right: every medical discipline
you've ever heard of — including internal medicine, oncology, neurology,
cardiology, psychiatry, pathology, surgery, infectious disease, hematology,
geriatrics, gastroenterology, ophthalmology, radiology, orthopedics, nephrology,
urology, pharmacology, emergency medicine and critical care — they're
all simply allopathy. Allopathy is only one word, so it's no better than homeopathy.
They're equals. You have the musings of one guy 200 years ago on one hand,
and on the other you have everything medical science has taught hundreds of
thousands of researchers since then. Homeopathy vs. allopathy. It's nice to
be able to conveniently dismiss so much with just one word. This makes it possible
to offer the innocent patient Door A or Door B. Knowing nothing further about
either choice beyond its one-word name, the innocent victim will probably take
whichever the practitioner advises.

Homeopathy shares one very important component with most other alternative
medicine systems. It was developed a long time ago, by one man, during a time
when almost nothing useful or true was known about medicine, and it is rigidly
required to stay frozen in time with the same original ancient worldview. Homeopathy,
like other alternative medicine systems, does not, cannot, must not grow, evolve,
or improve as we learn more about the human body. If it did adapt to new knowledge,
it would cease to be homeopathy and would be something different.

This ability to include and adapt to new knowledge is the central strength
of modern medicine. When we learn new things about the body, when we find a
better way to treat a condition, we adapt. We publish the results and we train
doctors on the new techniques. Every day, the knowledge base that modern medicine
is built upon grows. The collective experience of researchers and doctors grows.
But for homeopathy, and other alternative medicine systems, the knowledge base
stays frozen in 1807. AIDS drugs, for example, are so much better now than
they were just ten years ago, and ten years from now, they'll be even better
(there may even be a cure). But with homeopathy, AIDS is treated the same way
that any unknown illness was treated in 1807: with a vial of water, possibly
containing a few molecules of some compound that are hoped might stimulate
a balance of bodily humors.

Dilutions of homeopathic products that are sold today usually range from 6X
to 30X. This is homeopathy's system for measuring the dilution, and it doesn't
mean 1 part in 6 or 1 part in 30. X represents the roman numeral 10. A 6X dilution
means one part in 106, or one in one million. A 30X dilution means
one part in 1030, or one followed by 30 zeros. A few products are
even marketed using the C scale, roman numeral 100. 30C is 10030.
That's a staggering number; it's 1 followed by 60 zeros, about the number of
atoms in our galaxy. In 1807, they knew more about mathematics and chemistry
than they did about medicine, and it was known that there is a maximum dilution
possible in chemistry. Some decades later it was learned that this proportion
is related to Avogadro's constant, about 6 × 1023. Beyond
this limit, where many of Hahnemann's dilutions lay, they are in fact no longer
dilutions but are chemically considered to be pure water. So Hahnemann designed
a workaround. Hahnemann thought that if a solution was agitated enough, the
water would retain a spiritual imprint of the original substance, and could
then be diluted without limit. The water is often added to sugar pills for
remedies designed to be taken in a pill form. So when you buy homeopathic pills
sold today, you're actually buying sugar, water, or alcohol that's "channeling"
(for lack of a better term) some described substance. The substance itself
no longer remains, except for a few millionth-part molecules in the lowest
dilutions.

Let's look again at Avogadro's number. 6 × 1023 atoms is
called a mole, a term any chemistry student is familiar with. How big is that
number? Well, if you had 500 sheets of paper, you'd have a stack about two
and a half inches high, like a ream that you'd buy at the stationery store.
If you had 6 × 1023 sheets of paper, your stack would reach
all the way from the Earth to the Sun. And not only that: it would reach that
distance four hundred million times. Think about that for a moment.
One sheet of paper, in a stack that's 400,000,000 times the distance from the
Earth to the Sun. That's a typical homeopathic dilution. Sounds pretty potent,
doesn't it?

One explanation made by some homeopaths is that it works the same way as a
vaccine: putting a tiny amount of a disease-causing agent into the body — not
enough to cause the disease, but enough to stimulate the body's natural defenses
into fighting off that disease. Well, this is indeed the way a vaccine works,
but it's got nothing to do with the way Hahnemann defined homeopathy. Vaccines
are used to prevent an illness which does not yet exist in the body by triggering
the production of preventive antibodies; and homeopathy is used to fight a
disease already in the body, in which case any antibodies would already be
in production. The number of the antibodies triggered by a vaccine can be measured
in the bloodstream, whereas homeopathy is not intended to, and does not, produce
any measurable reaction. Vaccines insert inert versions of the disease-causing
agents into the body, where homeopathic substances are the same as that which
causes the disease. Finally and most obviously, vaccines contain a large and
fully measurable amount of active ingredient, whereas homeopathic remedies
contain no measurable active ingredient. So homeopathy can indeed be said to
work just like a vaccine; well, at least, it works just like a spiritual imprint
of a vaccine.

So why do so many people claim that it works, and swear by it? Homeopathy
has been tested over and over again, and though most studies show its effects
to be consistent with the placebo effect, a surprisingly large number of studies
do show that homeopathy produces results superior to a placebo. But in every
one of these cases, doubts have been raised about the quality of evidence in
the studies. According to the National Institutes of Health,
"Problems include weaknesses in design and/or reporting, choice of measuring
techniques, small numbers of participants, and difficulties in replicating
results." A favorite study of homeopaths is that of the British Medical
Journal in 1991, a meta-analysis of 107 controlled trials over a 25 year period.
The majority of the studies did show some positive results, and homeopaths
stop there. They stop short of the Journal's final conclusion, which was "At
the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to
draw definitive conclusions because most of the trials are of low methodological
quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias." If you need
the term "publication bias" translated, it means that the studies
showing positive results were conducted and/or published by the homeopathy
industry. The British Medical Journal went on to say "This indicates that
there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy, but only by
means of well performed trials."

Well, good luck to you, gentlemen. The UK Society of Homeopaths has stated "It
has been established beyond doubt that the randomized controlled trial is not
a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy." In other words,
homeopathy has given itself a Get Out of Jail Free card. Tests are
not adequate to test them. If you perform a clinical trial, and find that homeopathy
is no more effective than a placebo, the reason for the failure is that homeopathy
should not be tested. Claimed immunity from scientific scrutiny should stand
out as a huge red flag. When you hear anyone defend their claim by stating
that its effect cannot be detected through testing, be skeptical.

The upside of homeopathy is that it's not going to hurt anyone, since it lacks
any measurable active ingredients. And when treating conditions that are not
life threatening, like headaches or fatigue, there's no harm done. There is
massive harm done when practitioners or store owners recommend homeopathy as
a replacement for real medical treatment when a serious illness exists. Be
vigilant, and protect the health of your family, your friends, and yourself.

NCAHF. "NCAHF Position Paper on Homeopathy." National Council Against Health Fraud. The National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc., 1 Feb. 1994. Web. 22 Mar. 2007. <http://www.ncahf.org/pp/homeop.html>

Discuss!

Forgive me if this has been brought up before, but logically, if homeopathy works, then the most dilute of preparations should by assiciation possess the imprint of every known substance (more or less), and thereby be capable of remedying any and every possible "imbalance" in one fell swoop without the need for diagnosis?

And if true, one could also infer that the most dilute of solutions should, by it's very nature, (ie. The past history of the journey of all of the water molecules involved in the dilution process, and all of those substances with which they had interacted and rubbed shoulders throughout their existence) render any user immortal (more or less) providing they avoid fatal injury through physical misadventure?

Though it might be relatively more contaminated with a bit of this or that...(salt, calcium, fluoride, whiskey, poison or whatever) Isn't every drop of water that we take in already by definition the ultimate homeopathic goo already?

Splitbeam, CanadaMarch 20, 2013 3:05am

Some day someone high profile is going to die of an easily treatable and preventable disease because they went with this quackery instead of real medicine, someone will put it under the microscope and that will hopefully be the end of it.

All the while, the homeos will be screaming and yelling about a microscope being used instead of their special 'super small vision' pill.

Ray Panner, Regina, SKApril 7, 2013 4:36am

For some reason my aunt insists to say that homeopathy cured her. I dont understand people sometimes. She also used allopathy( the most reasonable explanation for the cure), but afirms that she was cured by homeopathy. Why people always choose the option that makes less sense? That could be a nice topic!

Pedro, Brasília/ BrazilApril 28, 2013 8:44am

your Aunt used allopathy???

Was it blood letting, acupuncture, leeches or burning?

I'd love to know..

Mud, sin city, OzAugust 2, 2013 5:09am

Brian,it was interesting reading based on some level of research rather than outrightly rejecting homeopathy.Brian ,I wish I could go by you by all means. But I am selfish,and i tend to believe that alternative medicines do work,may be by incidental. But it doesnt matter as long as it cures me or my wife of incurable diseases in allopathy.I am science phillic man and mock all kinds of magics and tricks.My wife suffered from incurable(as declared by orthopaedic) heel pain,being not able to move. On someones recommendation ,I took a chance with accupuncture. It took a bit of pain and money and she was cured beyond belief ,now spending normal life.Same happened with her migrain and my herpis problem which were cure without recurrence. For chronic problems,I think alternate medicines are mostly effective.One should try them where allopathy doesnt have a cure,at least.

MERAJ, UAENovember 1, 2013 12:42am

To the contrary, alternative modalities have been shown to be a scam Meraj, Have we a single alty cure that works? No..

The world throws a lot of money at alternative modalities as per research funding, training and intercomparison. Not only are the amounts obscene but the results are fruitful indeed. We now what clearly doesnt work.

You only need to read the WHO and NIH mongraphs on the abject failure or this endeavour
but in a technological society a search for a modality that may work and training folk in some medical practices has its benefits.

yes, the WHO in 1998 recognised it was archaic claptrap and has retracted many of the weasel words in its alternative modality monographs. The same goes for The NIH and NCCAMs.

The funding since 1990 has approached double that to the profoundly fruitful LHC which has not only generated your voice here, but multi billions of technology for medical applications (amongst a myriad of other things).

We await a result for alternative modalities.

From your anecdotes, I would be looking into your personal lifestyle for disease prevention.

PS Allopathy is alternative. Sorry to have to point that out. Acupuncture is a recognised form of allopathy.

I have the same opinion that, Splitbeam, Canada has. If Homeopathy works, as stated, the recommended 6 to 8 glasses of water, per day, should keep everyone healthy.

There are, 4,731.76 drops, in 8 ounces of water.

28390.56 to 37854.08 drops, per day, should surely be enough to cover every possible dilution/ailment. If not, where is the fallacy?

Reno, n/aJanuary 17, 2014 12:22pm

"where homeopathic substances are the same as that which causes the disease"

As I understand it, the "active ingredient" in a homeopathic remedy could be basically anything. Historically, homeopathic doctors would try out various herbs on themselves, record the symptoms over the course of a few days, then try and match those symptoms up with a known disease. The process is known in homeopathic circles as a "proving," which the homeopathic literature tries - completley unsuccessfully to anyone with any sense - to paint as a sort of proper clinical trial. In fact, it is wholly subjective, useless information. If a particular plant or bark made the "prover" feel achy and feverish in a way that he/she thought matched the symptoms of malaria, then the remedy might be "proven" as a good cure for malaria. So the substance the homeopaths administer is not, I think, actually the one that causes the disease (as in a vaccine), but one that some prover once thought caused similar symptoms. To give a sense of what sorts of crazy things are considered "active ingredients" in homeopathy, one need only take a quick look at the internet. Here's an example of a proving of - get this - badger as an ingredient: http://www.hominf.org/meles/badgintr.htm

Djindjer, BolognaJanuary 26, 2014 1:42am

however much the medical fraternity tried to tear down homeopathy as a myth, it still stands because people use it and get cured. if millions of people support it and use it, then I would say mordern science is blind or something is lacking with it.
No science is perfect. Sometimes engineering comes first and the science would emerge later. I would consider homeopathy as a tool developed by a great mind, the science of which could not be deciphered till now.

michael, texasJanuary 4, 2015 7:57pm

The last comment sits with many of the others. Until a proper clinical trial is conducted on each specific homeopathic 'remedy' then there is nothing here other than biased anecdotal evidence, coincidence, misunderstanding and misrepresentation in place of proof.
In none of these comments have I seen any evidence of replication.

Coraniaid, colchester, EnglandJanuary 5, 2015 4:56am

Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point).